Agentivity and intentionality -correction
dan_everett at SIL.ORG
Thu Mar 8 12:11:33 UTC 2001
My statement on RRG actually overstates the case a bit. RRG
distinguishes between intentional vs. nonintentional actors in
principle, but says that most languages will not avail themselves of
this distinction in most constructions. The claim is that such
distinctions are normally 'neutralized'. However, RRG allows for the
flexibility I appealed to in my last posting, by recognizing that in
some constructions in a one language or in all constructions in some
other language, this neutralization may fail to hold, leading to
distinctions in the relevance of intentionality (and whether the roles
involved are agent, effector, etc.).
The point is that it is misguided to try to impose a 'universal rule'
on how this teeny-weeny little bit of intentionality gets
More information about the Funknet